DOCSLIB.ORG

Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report AN A.S. PRATT PUBLICATION NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2020 VOL. 6 • NO. 9 PRATT’S PRATT’S PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY LAW & CYBERSECURITY PRIVACY PRATT’S PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY REPORT LAW REPORT EDITOR’S NOTE: INITIATIVES THE DAWNING OF NYDFS Victoria Prussen Spears CYBERSECURITY REGULATION NOVEMBER-DECEMBER ENFORCEMENT CYBERSECURITY PREPAREDNESS AND Jami Mills Vibbert, Michael A. Mancusi, THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF Nancy L. Perkins, Alex Altman, OPERATIONAL RESILIENCY Anthony Raglani, Javier Ortega, and Brian E. Finch, Cassandra Lentchner, and Kevin M. Toomey David Oliwenstein SCHREMS STRIKES AGAIN: BATTERY OF U.S. SENATORS INTRODUCE BILL NEW DATA PRIVACY COMPLAINTS RAISE IMPOSING STRINGENT, NATIONAL COMPLIANCE QUESTIONS FOR EU-U.S. BIOMETRIC PRIVACY REGULATION 2020 DATA TRANSFERS Jeffrey N. Rosenthal and David J. Oberly Angelo A. Stio III, Sharon R. Klein, and Jason J. Moreira THE CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS VOL. VOL. ACT HAS PASSED: WHAT’S IN IT? DESIGNING A BIPA DEFENSE: USING Brandon P. Reilly and Scott T. Lashway PREEMPTION AND ARBITRATION TO 6 DEFEAT BIOMETRIC CLASS ACTIONS • NO. Jeffrey N. Rosenthal and David J. Oberly 9 Pratt’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report VOLUME 6 NUMBER 9 NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2020 Editor’s Note: Initiatives Victoria Prussen Spears 265 Cybersecurity Preparedness and the Growing Importance of Operational Resiliency Brian E. Finch, Cassandra Lentchner, and David Oliwenstein 267 U.S. Senators Introduce Bill Imposing Stringent, National Biometric Privacy Regulation Jeffrey N. Rosenthal and David J. Oberly 272 The California Privacy Rights Act Has Passed: What’s In It? Brandon P. Reilly and Scott T. Lashway 276 The Dawning of NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation Enforcement Jami Mills Vibbert, Michael A. Mancusi, Nancy L. Perkins, Alex Altman, Anthony Raglani, Javier Ortega, and Kevin M. Toomey 285 Schrems Strikes Again: Battery of New Data Privacy Complaints Raise Compliance Questions for EU-U.S. Data Transfers Angelo A. Stio III, Sharon R. Klein, and Jason J. Moreira 288 Designing a BIPA Defense: Using Preemption and Arbitration to Defeat Biometric Class Actions Jeffrey N. Rosenthal and David J. Oberly 292 QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION? For questions about the Editorial Content appearing in these volumes or reprint permission, please contact: Deneil C. Targowski at ....................................................................................................... 908-673-3380 Email: .............................................................................................. [email protected] For assistance with replacement pages, shipments, billing or other customer service matters, please call: Customer Services Department at .............................................................................. (800) 833-9844 Outside the United States and Canada, please call .................................................. (518) 487-3385 Fax Number ....................................................................................................................... (800) 828-8341 Customer Service Web site ................................................................... http://www.lexisnexis.com/custserv/ For information on other Matthew Bender publications, please call Your account manager or ............................................................................................... (800) 223-1940 Outside the United States and Canada, please call ......................................................... (937) 247-0293 ISBN: 978-1-6328-3362-4 (print) ISBN: 978-1-6328-3363-1 (eBook) ISSN: 2380-4785 (Print) ISSN: 2380-4823 (Online) Cite this publication as: [author name], [article title], [vol. no.] PRATT’S PRIVACY &CYBERSECURITY LAW REPORT [page number] (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt); Laura Clark Fey and Jeff Johnson, Shielding Personal Information in eDiscovery, [5] PRATT’S PRIVACY & CYBERSECURITY LAW REPORT [245] (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt) This publication is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license.A.S. Pratt is a trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license. Copyright © 2020 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright is claimed by LexisNexis, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., or Reed Elsevier Properties SA, in the text of statutes, regulations, and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this work. Permission to copy material may be licensed for a fee from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone (978) 750-8400. An A.S. Pratt Publication Editorial Editorial Offices 630 Central Ave., New Providence, NJ 07974 (908) 464-6800 201 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94105-1831 (415) 908-3200 www.lexisnexis.com (2020–Pub. 4939) Editor-in-Chief, Editor & Board of Editors EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEVEN A. MEYEROWITZ President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. EDITOR VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS Senior Vice President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. BOARD OF EDITORS EMILIO W. CIVIDANES Partner, Venable LLP CHRISTOPHER G. CWALINA Partner, Holland & Knight LLP RICHARD D. HARRIS Partner, Day Pitney LLP JAY D. KENISBERG Senior Counsel, Rivkin Radler LLP DAVID C. LASHWAY Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP CRAIG A. NEWMAN Partner, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP ALAN CHARLES RAUL Partner, Sidley Austin LLP RANDI SINGER Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP JOHN P. TOMASZEWSKI Senior Counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP TODD G. VARE Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP THOMAS F. ZYCH Partner, Thompson Hine iii Pratt’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report is published nine times a year by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Washington, D.C., and at additional mailing offices. Copyright 2020 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form—by microfilm, xerography, or otherwise—or incorporated into any information retrieval system without the written permission of the copyright owner. For customer support, please contact LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 1275 Broadway, Albany, NY 12204 or e-mail [email protected]. Direct any editorial inquires and send any material for publication to Steven A. Meyerowitz, Editor-in-Chief, Meyerowitz Communications Inc., 26910 Grand Central Parkway Suite 18R, Floral Park, New York 11005, [email protected], 646.539.8300. Material for publication is welcomed—articles, decisions, or other items of interest to lawyers and law firms, in-house counsel, government lawyers, senior business executives, and anyone interested in privacy and cybersecurity related issues and legal developments. This publication is designed to be accurate and authoritative, but neither the publisher nor the authors are rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services in this publication. If legal or other expert advice is desired, retain the services of an appropriate professional. The articles and columns reflect only the present considerations and views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated, any of the former or present clients of the authors or their firms or organizations, or the editors or publisher. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Pratt’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report, LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 630 Central Ave., New Providence, NJ 07974. iv Schrems Strikes Again: Battery of New Data Privacy Complaints Raise Compliance Questions for EU-U.S. Data Transfers By Angelo A. Stio III, Sharon R. Klein, and Jason J. Moreira * Privacy activist Max Schrems has filed 101 complaints with 30 different EU regulatory bodies alleging that dozens of well-known companies are improperly continuing to transmit data to U.S. companies like Google and Facebook in violation of the Schrems II decision and EU data privacy laws. The authors of this article discuss the complaints and compliance matters for EU-U.S. data transfers. Barely one month after the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its Schrems II decision1 striking down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (“Privacy Shield”), Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems has filed 101 complaints2 with 30 different EU regulatory bodies alleging that dozens of well-known companies in e-commerce, telecommunications, banking, higher education, and other industries are improperly continuing to transmit data to U.S. companies like Google and Facebook in violation of the Schrems II decision and EU data privacy laws. The complaints represent an effort by Mr. Schrems and his nonprofit organization, NOYB (None of Your Business), to leverage the Schrems II decision to prohibit transfers of personal data from the EU to the United States and other countries, which he argues do not have adequate levels of protection in place. Given the number of European regulatory bodies involved and the complexity of the legal questions at issue, it is possible that a patchwork of regulatory responses could develop across the continent over the coming months and years. As a result, companies seeking to navigate this rapidly changing legal landscape – especially large technology companies and cloud-based service providers – should perform a thorough internal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 10, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden the White House 1600
    June 10, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, government accountability, and consumer rights organizations, urge your Administration to ensure that any new transatlantic data transfer deal is coupled with the enactment of U.S. laws that reform government surveillance practices and provide comprehensive privacy protections. The United States’ failure to ensure meaningful privacy protections for personal data is the reason that a growing number of countries are concerned about trans-border data flows. Until the United States addresses this problem, concerns about data transfers to the United States will remain, and data flow agreements are likely to be invalidated. Recent history demonstrates that any transatlantic data transfer agreement will be subject to litigation to determine whether it provides adequate protection for personal data. In 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement. And in July 2020, the successor agreement, Privacy Shield, was also invalidated by the same court. Without reform of U.S. surveillance and privacy laws, any new transatlantic data transfer deal will likely face a similar fate. The only way to fully address these issues and enter into a lasting transatlantic agreement is to harmonize data protection standards between the European Union and the United States. There have been calls for the United States to strengthen and modernize its privacy laws since long before the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation came into effect in 2018. The modern concept of the right to privacy was invented in the United States – but now we lag behind many other nations on privacy protections.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey on Privacy Preserving in Social Networks
    International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391 Survey on Privacy Preserving in Social Networks S. Mayil1, Dr. M. Vanitha2 1Research scholar, PG & Research Department of Computer Science, JJ College of Arts and Science (Autonomous), Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu, India 2Assistant Professor, Ph.D. and Research Department of Computer Application, Alagappa University, Karaikudi , Tamilnadu. Abstract: The development of online social networks and the release of data network resulting in the risk of leakage of personal confidential information. This requires privacy protection before the data network is published by the service provider. Data privacy online social networks are important in recent years. Therefore, this research is still in its infancy. This article describes the generalization techniques of anonymous social networking data with sufficient privacy for harsh environments while preserving the validity of the data. The loss metric information, iloss, is used to check the information due to the loss of the generalized amount. While these networks make frequent data sharing and intercommunication between users can instantly and privacy problems that may arise are very explicable with their obvious immediate consequences. Although the concept of privacy can take different forms, the ultimate challenge is how to prevent the invasion of privacy when personal information is available. Basic social networks, co-statements, and their associated primary motivations. The following describes how to protect privacy, relying on technical analysis and link social networks to disclose sensitive user information. Keywords: Data Privacy, Data Publishing, Privacy Preserving, Social Network, Service Provider. 1. Introduction data may affect the privacy of individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • CJEU Ruling on Facebook Action on January 25, 2018: Class Action, Model Case Or No Jurisdiction?
    CJEU ruling on Facebook action on January 25, 2018: Class action, model case or no jurisdiction? In August 2014, lawyer and data protection expert Max Schrems filed a lawsuit against Facebook with his competent court in Vienna, as previous complaints in Ireland have not been decided by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner since 2011. Now the CJEU decides on the admissibility of the lawsuit against Facebook. Previously, in 2015 Schrems brought down the EU-US “Safe Harbor” system through a case against Facebook at the CJEU. Dispute solely on jurisdiction and on two questions Facebook has submitted various grounds with the court in Vienna, why the procedure should not be heard at all. The majority of these attempts to prevent the procedure have already been rejected by the Austria courts over the past three years. What remained, were two questions: (1) whether Mr Schrems is a "consumer" or has lost this status through his pro bono work as a privacy advocate; and (2) whether he can bring claims of other users jointly in a "class action". The class action is financed by ROLAND Prozessfinanz AG. Facebook wants each of the 25,000 other users to have to sue in a separate procedure - which would make the legal costs skyrocket and a case against Facebook financially impossible for most users. In Facebook’s view, the same legal and factual issues should therefore be trailed 25,000 times in front of thousands of European courts and judges (“divide and conquer”). These two questions were submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Facebook: Where Privacy Concerns and Social Needs Collide
    Edith Cowan University Research Online Theses: Doctorates and Masters Theses 2020 Facebook: Where privacy concerns and social needs collide Sonya Scherini Edith Cowan University Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Social Media Commons Recommended Citation Scherini, S. (2020). Facebook: Where privacy concerns and social needs collide. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ theses/2331 This Thesis is posted at Research Online. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/2331 Edith Cowan University Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorize you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. Where the reproduction of such material is done without attribution of authorship, with false attribution of authorship or the authorship is treated in a derogatory manner, this may be a breach of the author’s moral rights contained in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Courts have the power to impose a wide range of civil and criminal sanctions for infringement of copyright, infringement of moral rights and other offences under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form.
    [Show full text]
  • A Collaborative Framework: for Privacy Protection in Online Social Networks
    A Collaborative Framework: for Privacy Protection in Online Social Networks 4 4 Yan Zhu1,2, Zexing Hu1, Huaixi Wang3, Hongxin Hu , Gail-Joon Ahn 1 Institute of Computer Science and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 2Key Laboratory of Network and Software Security Assurance (Peking University), Ministry of Education, China 3School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China, 4Laboratory of Security Engineering for Future Computing (SEFCOM), Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA Email: {yan.zhu.huzx.wanghx}@pku.edu.cn. {hxhu,gahn }@asu.edu Abstract-With the wide use of online social networks (OSNs) , Although some new techniques were introduced in these the problem of data privacy has attracted much attention. solutions, it is still necessary for a centralized server to Several approaches have been proposed to address this issue. enforce access control, which cannot protect the privacy of One of privacy management approaches for OSN leverages a key users against the centralized server. Also, some solutions management technique to enable a user to simply post encrypted contents so that only users who can satisfy the associate security implemented access control at client-side but their approach policy can derive the key to access the data. However, the key should be synchronous, requiring multiple users to be online management policies of existing schemes may grant access to simultaneously. unaurhorized users and cannot efficiently determine authorized One of efficient ways for enforcing access control in OSN users. In this paper, we propose a collaborative framework is to allow users to put the encrypted data on the server and which enforces access control for OSN through an innovative key management focused on communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Checkliste Datenverkehr Eu - Usa
    CHECKLISTE DATENVERKEHR EU - USA 1. Findet ein Datenverkehr mit den USA statt?1 ☐ Datenübermittlung in die USA an o Konzernunternehmen? o direkte Vertragspartner (laufende Projekte, Kooperationen etc)? ☐ Datenhosting in den USA? o Software-Hosting (z.B. HubSpot, Apple) o Clouds (z.B. Microsoft, Google, Amazon) o Mailings (z.B. Gmail, Mailchimp) ☐ Social Media Nutzung mit USA-Beteiligung? o Social Media Accounts (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) o Social Media Fanpages o Social PlugIns 2. Ist das datenempfangende US Unternehmen ein „elektronischer Diensteanbieter“ wie in der beanstandeten Regelung des Section 702 Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) gefordert? ☐ Ja –> Weiter zu 3. ☐ Nein. 15.1. Werden sonstige Sicherheitsmaßnahmen vom US-Unternehmen getroffen, um etwaigen Datenzugriff Unberechtigter zu verhindern? ☐ Ich weiß es nicht. In diesem Fall können Sie einen Fragebogen (wie z.B. von NOYB) an das US Unternehmen schicken, um abzuklären, ob das Unternehmen unter die strengen Überwachungsgesetze der USA fällt, welche vom Europäischen Gerichtshof problematisch gesehen wurden. Das sind z.B.: - Telekommunikationsanbieter - Clouddiensteanbieter - Anbieter elektronischer Kommunikationsdienste - sonstige gesetzliche oder freiwillige Überwachungsmaßnahme von Seiten der US-Behörden, an denen das Unternehmen beteiligt ist? 3. Auf welcher Grundlage findet der Datentransfer statt? ☐ Privacy Shield –> Weiter zu 4. ☐ Standardvertragsklauseln (SCC) –> Weiter zu 5. ☐ Binding Corporate Rules (BRC) –> Weiter zu 6. ☐ genehmigte Vertragsklauseln –> Derzeit keine Änderung notwendig! ☐ ausdrückliche Einwilligung –> Prüfung von: 1 Falls auch nur ein Punkt bejaht wird –> Weiter zu 2. o Verträgen und Einwilligungserklärungen der Betroffenen, o Informationserteilung an Betroffene über Risiken in Drittland. -> Derzeit keine Änderung notwendig. ☐ Vertragserfüllung: o Verträge und AGB prüfen o Übermittlung ist für Vertragserfüllung zwischen der betroffenen Person und dem Verantwortlichen oder zur Durchführung von vorvertraglichen Maßnahmen auf Antrag der betroffenen Person erforderlich.
    [Show full text]
  • Gibson Dunn Paris | Data Protection – December 2020
    December 14, 2020 GIBSON DUNN PARIS | DATA PROTECTION – DECEMBER 2020 To Our Clients and Friends: Personal Data Watch Europe 11/27/2020 – Committee of Convention 108 | Guidelines | Children's data protection in education setting The Council of Europe’s Committee of Convention 108 published guidelines on children's data protection in an education setting. For further information: Council of the Europe Website 11/20/2020 – Presidency of the Council of the European Union | Progress report | ePrivacy Regulation The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published a statement on the ePrivacy Regulation and the future role of Supervisory Authorities and the EDPB. In particular, the EDPB expressed its concerns about the latest developments regarding the enforcement of the future ePrivacy Regulation, which would create fragmentation of supervision, procedural complexity, as well as lack of consistency and legal certainty. For further information: EDPB Website 11/17/2020 – European Data Protection Supervisor | Opinion | European Health Data Space The European Data Protection Supervisor published a Preliminary Opinion on the European Health Data Space, which aims to highlight the essential elements to be taken into account in its elaboration from a data protection perspective. For further information: EDPB Website 11/10/2020 – European Data Protection Board | Document | Procedure for the development of informal Codes of Conduct sessions The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published a document on the procedure for the development of informal “Codes of Conduct sessions”. For further information: EDPB Website 11/12/2020 – European Commission | Draft Standard Contractual Clauses The European Commission published two draft Standard Contractual Clauses: (i) the first to carry out an international transfer of data to a third country in the absence of an adequacy decision under Article 46 of the GDPR, and (ii) the second to regulate the relationship between data controller and data processor in accordance with the requirements of Article 28.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Privacy Regulations Restricting Access to Genealogical Records Jan Meisels Allen
    IAJGS 38th International Conference on Jewish Genealogy August 6, 2018 Warsaw, Poland Worldwide Privacy Regulations Restricting Access to Genealogical Records Jan Meisels Allen Genealogists without records can’t do genealogy! We are facing crises worldwide on access to vital records due to misunderstandings by those in power about identity theft and fraud and due to budget cuts Privacy Someone's right to keep their personal matters and relationships secret Why Do We Care About Privacy? There are many people who value their privacy, and wouldn't dream of posting personal information about themselves or their family where everyone can see it. Some of those people are my cousins, and some of them are your cousins - but how could you and I hope to connect with them online given their concerns? Do You Want Your Information Available to Everyone? We want others to provide information to us. Do we want our personal information posted to the Internet? European Union Members 28 Countries Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech Croatia Cyprus Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Until 3-29- United Kingdom 2019 European Union - 2 • 28 Countries until BREXIT takes place - 29 March 2019 • 500 million residents • Right to be forgotten/erased • Google has ~90% of Search Engine Market in Europe-varies by country • Since May 29, 2014 Google received 698,395 requests to delink from 2,615,742 URLs. They did not remove 44 percent of the URLs requested. • Fall 2016 CJEU ruled hyperlinking by third-party website (search engine) without consent of holder constitutes a "communication to the public“ and doing so is a violation of EU copyright directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Unzulässigkeit Der Datenübermittlung in Die USA (Cepstudie)
    cepStudie 26. Januar 2021 Unzulässigkeit der Datenübermittlung in die USA Das EuGH-Urteil „Schrems II“ und seine Folgen Anja Hoffmann © iStock Nach dem „Schrems II“-Urteil des EuGH dürfen Transfers personenbezogener Daten in die USA nicht mehr auf den „Pri- vacy-Shield“-Beschluss gestützt werden, weil die USA keinen ausreichenden Datenschutz bieten. Derzeit werden Da- tentransfers daher meist auf Standardvertragsklauseln gestützt, deren Nutzung grundsätzlich zulässig bleibt. Kernthesen Auch auf Standardvertragsklauseln und unternehmensinterne Datenschutzregelungen dürfen Datentransfers in die USA nicht gestützt werden, wenn die dortigen Datenempfänger den US-Überwachungsgesetzen unterliegen und Zugriff auf die Dateninhalte im Klartext haben. In diesen Fällen können auch ergänzende Datenschutzmaßnahmen Zugriffe der US-Behörden nicht wirksam verhin- dern. Insbesondere Transfers an Cloud-Dienste und Transfers innerhalb von Unternehmensgruppen in die USA sind daher in diesen Fällen rechtswidrig. Der Datenexporteur – oder die Aufsichtsbehörde – muss den Datentransfer stoppen. Weder ein reformierter „Privacy Shield“ noch die von der EU-Kommission im November 2020 vorgeschlagenen geän- derten Standardvertragsklauseln ändern etwas hieran, solange die USA ihre Überwachungsgesetze nicht auf das nach EU-Recht zulässige Maß begrenzen und EU-Bürgern keine wirksamen Rechtsbehelfe gewähren. Das Gleiche gilt für Datentransfers in andere Drittländer, soweit deren Überwachungsgesetze mit dem Datenschutz der EU kollidieren. Dies muss in jedem Einzelfall geprüft werden. II cepStudie Unzulässigkeit der Datenübermittlung in die USA Kernpunkte Zum „Schrems II“-Urteil des EuGH Transfers personenbezogener Daten aus der EU in die USA dürfen nicht länger auf den „Privacy- Shield“-Beschluss der EU-Kommission gestützt werden. Der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) hat diesen Beschluss im „Schrems II“-Urteil zu Recht für ungültig erklärt, weil der „Privacy Shield“ kei- nen im Vergleich zur EU gleichwertigen Datenschutz bietet.
    [Show full text]
  • Caveat Emptor: a New Form of Participatory Mapping and Its Ethical Implications for Participatory GIS
    Caveat Emptor: A new form of participatory mapping and its ethical implications for Participatory GIS Koshiro Suzuki a, * a Faculty of Humanities, University of Toyama 1,[email protected] * Corresponding author Abstract: Since the 1990s, the consolidation of technological platforms for geographic information has expanded the possibilities of geospatial analysis in conjunction with GIS. Even ordinary people have become capable of interactive web communication with electronic maps thanks to the emergence of smartphones compatible with GeoAPI (application programming interface) and Wi-Fi access. Many studies have described the progress that built a solid foundation of web democracy by embodying people-powered mapping circumstances in the so-called Web 2.0. However, we have yet to acquire geographic information ethics that sufficiently respond to new threats stemming from these circumstances. In the present paper, the author instantiated a user-generated online mapping website named Caveat Emptor (a.k.a. Oshimaland) to investigate the necessity of a geographic information ethics 2.0. By incorporating Suler’s (2004) concept of online disinhibition effects, the author clarified that people can utilise new technologies both in good ways and bad, from behind the safety of a mask. Despite the omnoptic mutual surveillance environment, the associated participants in actual scenes of cyberspace are not always restrained. This explains why it is necessary to update geographic information ethics to be compatible with Web 2.0 circumstances. Four types of ethical challenges were identified that are concerned with (1) the extent to which volunteered geographic information (VGI) should be recruited in constructing collective knowledge, (2) how to build a renewed geographic information ethics in general, (3) how to construct a gradation in geographic information ethics in practice, and (4) what scientific knowledge should be referred to in the contiguous areas of specialisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions to Security and Privacy Issues in Mobile Social Networking
    Solutions to Security and Privacy Issues in Mobile Social Networking Aaron Beach, Mike Gartrell, and Richard Han faaron.beach, mike.gartrell, [email protected] University of Colorado at Boulder Abstract—Social network information is now being used in 1) We identify three classes of privacy and security prob- ways for which it may have not been originally intended. In lems associated with mobile social network systems: (1) particular, increased use of smartphones capable of running direct anonymity issues, (2) indirect or K-anonymity applications which access social network information enable applications to be aware of a user’s location and preferences. issues, and (3) eavesdropping, spoofing, replay, and However, current models for exchange of this information require wormhole attacks. While these problems have been users to compromise their privacy and security. We present examined before in other contexts, we discuss how these several of these privacy and security issues, along with our design problems present unique challenges in the context of and implementation of solutions for these issues. Our work allows mobile social network systems. We motivate the need location-based services to query local mobile devices for users’ social network information, without disclosing user identity or for solutions to these problems. compromising users’ privacy and security. We contend that it 2) We present a design for a system, called the identity is important that such solutions be accepted as mobile social server, that provides solutions for these security and networks continue to grow exponentially. privacy problems. The identity server adapts established privacy and security technologies to provide novel so- I.
    [Show full text]
  • Schrems II One Pager
    How Cloud, SaaS and Outsourced Data Processing Can Remain Lawful After the Schrems II Invalidation of the Privacy Shield for International Data Transfers The biggest development in years impacting Anonos uses the term Data Liquidity® to describe the international data processing was the recent invalidation ability to simultaneously achieve both universal data of the Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the protection and unrivaled data utility. Anonos delivers European Union in the “Schrems II” court decision.1 Data Liquidity by leveraging GDPR-compliant Pseudonymisation together with patented state-of-the-art Companies that previously relied on the Privacy Shield technology to transform data into a new secure data for the processing of EU personal data, including cloud, asset called a Variant Twin. With Variant Twins, it is SaaS and outsourcing arrangements, now need a new virtually impossible for anyone other than an EU data legal basis for the processing to remain lawful.2 exporter to re-identify data, because they provide protection for data while in use. In addition, Variant To date, the only EU data protection authority to offer Twins provide results with the same accuracy and Schrems II guidance is Germany’s Baden-Württemberg value as when processing clear-text source data.8 Commissioner3 which identified (i) Encryption, (ii) Anonymisation and (iii) Pseudonymisation as potential means for supplementing Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) to enable Schrems II lawful processing. However, Max Schrems and NOYB (his privacy advocacy group)4 take the position that Encryption does not satisfy Schrems II requirements.5 In addition, only the most generalised non-relinkable Anonymisation can satisfy Schrems II.6 This dramatically reduces the data utility for global processing, today and tomorrow.
    [Show full text]